The marketing list has again disappeared, I have added it back, again. This seems reasonable, but all it would do is compromise Sugar on a Stick as a meaningful name. Let's say I repackage generic covered plastic bowls and call it Super Tupperware. No problem, right? And let's say the covers don't fit and everybody's food goes bad. Still no problem? And let's say people get sick and decide to complain to Tupperware, because nobody understands the difference between Tupperware and Super Tupperware, except some people who got both and say the "original" Tupperware is in fact much better, but most people aren't aware of that (they just Google for tupperware and go for the first sponsored link they see). Meanwhile, I close out Super Tupperware because of the problems and reopen as Mega Tupperware. See the problem in this scenario?
This is why trademark law exists... to protect the work that goes into building a brand. A brand isn't just a name pasted on top... it's the quality of the product, its ecosystem, its support, its growth and development vision, its values, its contributors. Users see the logo and think of all of these. Tupperware would come down like a hawk on me if I started calling anything I want Tupperware, not because they are evil legal beavers, but because they want people to continue thinking that Tupperware means good quality, useful, attractive plasticware demonstrated and delivered and supported locally, and they don't want those values - that brand equity - damaged. Rather than imagine hypothetical projects, I think it's more productive to think about working with existing distros, and desktops too in particular Gnome. I'm still not seeing the problem with welcoming other distros which would like to implement Sugar, either on liveUSB, in an LTSP architecture, or other. We want Sugar to run on all kinds of hardware, while being easy to try for newcomers. Ubuntu is perhaps the best-known GNU/Linux desktop distro today outside of techie geek circles. It's well-known because of Canonical's marketing expense and the work of countless LoCo Teams over a solid product. So if I slap together a new distro and a three-page website and call the project Mubuntu, is that OK or not? How about Redora? Or OpenZooz? The most generic term for what Sugar on a Stick is "a liveUSB version of Sugar". USB removable media is called USB stick, USB thumbdrive, USB key, USB pendrive. There's ample room for creative marketers to find names other than Sugar on a Stick. An unknown brand with focus and a clear message can succeed. I say can, because lots of other factors are involved including luck. But, an unknown brand without focus won't succeed. For Sugar on a Stick to mean anything, especially in terms of support, Sugar Labs has to call the shots. And, while Sugar on a Stick is our marketing pillar, other Sugar Labs projects exist and yet others will see the light of day. I'm as eager as anyone to see creative solutions for breaking the installation barrier. For all we know, an effective future version of Sugar on a Stick may be a netbook implementation booting Sugar off an XS server and writing individual Journals to students' cloud storage. For now, we have to nurture and protect what we have, so it can grow. Sean On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Caryl Bigenho <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi... > > It's sort of like root beer... > > You can buy A&W or Barq's or other private labels... or make your own. It is > still "root beer." > > Sugar on a Stick is really exactly what it says, Sugar running on a usb > stick. It is a very descriptive label. To call other distributions of Sugar > on a usb stick something else would be confusing. However, calling it say, > "Blueberry Sugar on a Stick by Sugar Labs" or "Orange Sugar on a Stick by > Skunk Works" would distinguish the developer and variety without being > confusing and still tell folks what it is. > > Then they could tell one another... "get the Blueberry by SugarLabs, it's > much better than Skunk Works' Orange." > > Remember your, generally, technologically innocent (not all of them) > intended end user. > > Caryl > > > >> Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 12:31:33 +0000 >> From: [email protected] >> To: [email protected] >> CC: [email protected]; [email protected]; >> [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [SoaS] updating the draft decision panel report >> >> On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 11:08:22PM -0800, Caryl Bigenho wrote: >> >> I'm having trouble squaring this with your earlier >> statement[1]. Aren't you saying both: >> >> > > [let's allow lots of "Sugar On A Stick" products] >> >> and[2]: >> >> > [too many names are confusing] >> >> Please can you explain how to reconcile both [1] and [2]. >> >> > Caryl >> >> Martin >> >> 1. >> > > Hi... I guess I've become the minority. I still believe that the >> > > name "Sugar On A Stick" should be allowed for all distributions of >> > > Sugar on a usb stick or even a live CD. Sugar Labs can control >> > > and identify their special builds in a special way... "SoaS by >> > > SugarLabs" or whatever, but the term has already become so generic >> > > that trying to make it exclusive at this point seems to be a waste >> > > of time and energy. >> >> 2. >> > Having many different names for different versions of Sugar on a usb >> > stick will only confuse them. >> > > _______________________________________________ > SoaS mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/soas > > _______________________________________________ SoaS mailing list [email protected] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/soas
